In order to strengthen the academic integrity construction of Acta Agriculurae Boreali-Sinica (AABS), prevent academic misconduct, the journal is based on the relevant provisions of  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/), Ethical standard for scientific journal publishing, and Academic publishing specification-Definition of academic misconduct for journals, based on the actual situation of the journal, formulate the publishing ethics code of AABS.

1 Definition and dealing with academic misconduct

(1) Academic misconduct of author

Plagiarism: the act of using improper means to steal others' views, data, images, research methods, written expressions, etc. and publish them in their own name; Fabrication: the act of fabricating or fabricating data or facts; Falsification: deliberately modifying data and facts to make them lose authenticity; Inappropriate authorship: signature or author ranking behavior that is inconsistent with the actual contribution to the paper; Multiple submissions: the act of submitting the same paper or multiple papers with only minor differences to two or more journals, or transferring to other journals within the agreed time limit; Overlapping publications: the act of repeatedly publishing the contents of the published literature without explanation (or as one of the authors); Violating research ethics: the research involved in the paper did not obtain ethical approval as required, or exceeded the scope of ethical approval, or violated the research ethics.

(2) Academic misconduct of reviewers

Review against academic ethics: condone academic misconduct in paper review, or review based on non academic factors; Interfere with the review process: deliberately delay the review process, or influence the publication of decisions in an improper manner;Violation of the provisions on conflict of interest: not disclosing or concealing the interest relationship with the author of the reviewed paper, or deliberately recommending other reviewers who have an interest relationship with specific manuscripts; Breach of confidentiality: Share or use the content of the manuscript under review with others without authorization, or publish the content of the unpublished manuscript; Embezzle the content of the manuscript: use the content of the unpublished manuscript reviewed by yourself without authorization, or use the content of the unpublished manuscript with permission without citation or explanation; Seek illegitimate interests: use the confidential information in the evaluation and the right of evaluation to seek profits for yourself.

(3) Academic misconduct of editors

Make editorial comments that violate academic and ethical standards: Make editorial comments that do not follow academic and ethical standards and the purpose of the journal; Violation of the provisions on conflict of interest: concealing the interest relationship with the contributor,or deliberately selecting the reviewer who has an interest relationship with the contributor;Breach of confidentiality requirements:Deliberately disclose the relevant information of the author and reviewer of the paper in the anonymous review,or disclose,disclose and use the contents of the edited manuscript without authorization,or leak the information of the manuscript due to non-compliance with relevant regulations;Embezzle the contents of manuscripts: use the contents of unpublished manuscripts without authorization, or use the contents of unpublished manuscripts without citation or explanation with permission;Seek illegitimate interests: make use of the confidential information in the journal layout, editing procedures, editing rights, etc.

(4) Treatment of papers with academic misconduct

① For papers that have been identified as academic misconduct, the editorial department will notify the authors in time; if the authors have any objections, the authors are allowed to explain and defend this issue within 7 working days, and the editorial department will be responsible for inviting experts to review the paper, and will notify the authors of the final results of the process within 30 working days.

② If the papers have not been formally published, the paper will terminate the processing process and be directly withdrawn.

③ If the paper has been formally published, a formal retraction published statement will be published in the paper edition and on the journal's website, and the cooperative database will be notified to withdraw the publication of the paper. At the same time, a notice of withdrawal will be sent to the author and the author's affiliation. The journal reserves the right to seek compensation for any damage caused to the journal's reputation or other losses.

④ The authors who have academic misconduct such as plagiarism and multiple submissions, their papers will not be accepted by the journal within 5 years.

2 Responsibilities of authors

(1) The author should provide an objective description of the exact description of its original research and its importance. The submitted manuscript should contain sufficient arguments and literature to facilitate other people to continue the research, and should meet the relevant requirements in the "Notes for Submission" of this journal.

(2) The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

(3) The signed author must be a substantial contributor to the paper, including: ① An important contributor to the idea or design of the research work; Or obtain, analyze or interpret data for research data; ② The drafter of the research paper or the reviser of the paper on important intellectual content; ③ To finalize the version to be published; ④ Agree to be responsible for all aspects of the research work to ensure that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the paper are properly investigated and resolved. Those who fail to meet all four criteria (such as those who only provide technical assistance to the paper, or provide financial and material support) should not be listed as authors, but they can express their gratitude to those who provide help in their thanks; When the author is a group author, all group members must meet the above standards and be responsible for the quality, accuracy and ethics of the paper. All authors must participate in determining the order of authors.

(4) All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

(5) The journal requires all research animal activity to be performed in compliance with national and local laws and regulations, following ethical rules. The experiments should be conducted in accordance with the principles and specific guidelines presented, for example, Laboratory animals—General requirements for animal experiment (GB/T 35823—2018), Laboratory Animal Anaesthesia and AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. The authors should state explicitly that institutional animal care and use approval was obtained before the commencement of the study. Authors should make it clear that experiments were conducted in a manner that avoided unnecessary discomfort to the animals by laboratory techniques. Methods of euthanasia must be described.

(6) When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

3 Responsibilities of reviewers

(1) The reviewers should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

(2) Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

(3) The manuscript under review is a confidential document. Without the consent of the editor and the author, the reviewer cannot disclose the content of the manuscript or discuss the manuscript with others.

(4) The reviewers must keep the information obtained during the review process confidential and cannot use it privately. During the review, the manuscript cannot be rejected because of conflicts of interest such as competition and collaboration.

(5) When the reviewers feel that it is impossible to complete the review of the manuscript within the prescribed time, they must inform the editor of the information so that the manuscript can be sent to other reviewers.

4 Responsibilities of the editors

(1) The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

(2) The editor shall not disclose any information of the manuscript to others except the corresponding author, reviewer and publisher.

(3) The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

(4) For the review experts recommended by the author, the editor should carefully review whether the basic information is accurate, whether the academic background is consistent with the research background of the article, and whether there is a conflict of interest with the author, and carefully decide whether to submit them to the recommended experts for review; If the reasons given by the author are sufficient, the choice of the author should be respected as much as possible.

(5) Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor should recuse himself/herself from handling manuscripts (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. The editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.